Precautionary Principle in Managerial Decision-Making:
a Socio-Cognitive Engineering Perspective
Adam Maria Gadomski*, Tomasz Adam Zimny**
** Institute of Legal Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland (Phd candidate)
* ENEA, R C. Casaccia, Italy.
Key Abstract Objects essential for the application of Precautionary
Principle
Our work is aimed at the modelling of the Precautionary Principle (PP) in
the context of real-world threats and complex managerial decisions.
Human socio-cognitive decision-making is critical for Large Complex
Critical Infrastructure (LCCI) networks, which are vulnerable to a cascading
effect, when the losses’ generation propagates from one domain to
another and between different, interdependent LCCI systems.
Critical infrastructures’ safety and security depend not only on
technological design solutions and installed protective hardware and
software systems. Protection of critical infrastructures is a responsibility of
decision-makers acting also at a very high (political) level (Ezell 2007),
however protection of infrastructure elements remains a responsibility of
organizations, who own them and their employees (individual decisionmakers) (Jones 2007).
Precautionary Principle
A concept developed strongly since the 1980s
Advises to take measures aimed at avoidance of
unwanted events in case of insufficient data and
knowledge as to their severity or occurrence
Is introduced in many legal documents
Influences risk management policies.
Fig. 1
Expected and assessable
non-negative and
negative consequences
Negative event
The TOGA meta-theory, as a meta-knowledge
conceptualization tool, has been applied to the
knowledge ordering in several identification and
specification complex, interdisciplinary problems
(Gadomski 1994), (Gadomski et. al. 2001), (Gadomski
2002), (Gadomski 2007). It is based on the set of: topaxioms, modelling paradigms, top-models and
methodology.
In this work we need to integrate identification and
specification perspective (where identification relates
to existing objects and specification is focused on the
design of not existing yet systems/processes),
because, on the one hand we recognize real decisional
situation and on the other, we propose a concert
structured response modelling process.
Since there are many versions of PP, as well as many legal
approaches to the concept of risk itself, the main goal of the
authors was to propose a computational modelling framework
describing when PP should be applied and the way of its domainspecific specialization.
This task requires the distinguishing of the classes of situations
where PP is suggested, and a sufficient formalization of the PP rule
in the decisional context.
The model is constructed using to the Top-down Object-based
Goal-oriented Approach (TOGA) meta-theory. The specific sociocognitive property of this approach is the assumption of the
perspective of a concrete intelligent agent (individual or group of
intelligent beings) IA, which is involved in a given interventionoriented decision-making in a pre-selected domain of his activity.
Area for the Precautionary
approach: a not sufficiently defined
set of plausible events
PP application is focused on the events which
could be threats
from the perspective of the goal of
decision-maker
Non-negative event
Action/result of
decision
According to the TOGA meta-theory, decisions of
an intelligent agent depend on its/his Information,
Preferences and Knowledge (IPK). IPK are modificabile and
can also be interdependent:
Information
(1): data which represent state of the
recognized agent’s domain of activity
I
P
Preferences,
K
(P): ordered relations among states
of the domain of activity of the agent which indicate
a state with higher utility (preferred)
Knowledge,
(K): everything that transforms
(quantitatively/qualitatively) information into other
information or into knowledge or a preference.
Fig. 2
Decomposition of generic decision-making based on the IPK evaluation process
Proposed stages of the decision-making:
1. Reception of information about an event
The I0 on the scheme denotes any new information, the agent
receives. Thus, the scheme can depict a situation in which no
losses are generated (a neutral situation) and an emergency
situation, where the emergency manager receives new I
relevant in his situation.
2. Situation assessment
The situation assessment stage is presented at level 2 of fig. 3
and in detail fig. 4. It comprises of following stages:
- processing of information with static model K (acquisition of
information about current domain state)
- processing of information with dynamic model K (acquisition
of information about possible future domain states).
3. Evaluation of possessed information and knowledge from
the point of view of agent’s preferences – this stage comprises
of following substages:
- Evaluation of the content of IPK
- Evaluation of the amount of IPK
- Evaluation of quality of IK
4. Making the decision
At this stage of decision-making, the agent is able to determine
whether the situation requires the application of PP and decides
about actions (A) to be taken. The choice of A depends on
several factors, such as losses caused by predicted event or their
likelihood. Besides it depends on generalised, relative cost of
current A. Depending on the level of decision-making these cost
can encompass economical, political, ethical, cultural, personal
costs. They are assessed subjectively at the moment of making
the decision, and connected with spatial and temporal
perspective of the decision maker, who has to make a metadecision about whether possible action can be carried out
within certain amount of time.
Scheme of a single branch of
generic IPK-based decisionmaking function
I0
Stage:
1
(Information
about event)
Legend:
2
Situation Assessment [I,K]
No risk
perception
No
Static models
processing
Risk related I,K
anaysis
Yes
Risk related IPK
Satisfactory?
4
Dynamic
models
processing
IMd31…….IMd3
n
Fig. 4
References
Decision n
As follows from our decomposition, in order to apply the PP, the
agent has to determine that:
- the expected event can be considered a threat
- I or P or K are insufficient to assess risk normally
The precautionary approach cannot be taken solely at the level of
decision-maker. He has to possess a proper normative and organizational
framework. That is, why the PP has to be applied also within the
legislation, in order to provide the agent with a proper set of P and
maintain an efficient flow of I and K. Legislation has to contain directives
as to the application if the PP by the agent. Improper legal framework can
strongly contribute to loss increase when a threat becomes apparent,
because such framework influences the decisions made by multiple
agents, which, if taken wrongly, may cause loss accumulation.
These considerations are critical for LCCI risk management policies, where
decisions about the functioning of interdependent critical networks
(electrical, telecommunications, etc.) have to be made under time
constrains (Bologna, 2003). If the decision cannot be postponed, the
issue of a quick access to critical I and K becomes particularly important
as well, as clear distribution of competencies.
…………..
Mnd
I0 – new information
obtained by the agent
Mns – static models used
to process information
IMsnm
–
information
obtained
due
to
processing
of
information with static
models
Mnd – dynamic models
used
to
process
information
IMdnm
–
information
obtained
due
to
processing information
with dynamic models.
Further decision making
stages
Risk management
decisions
…………..
………..
Evaluation of total
information about
possible consequences
Additional
IPK
available
from other
sources?
NoNo
Therefore PP can be first applied only at level 4 of the scheme
Mns
IMs31…….IMs3n
n
Assessment of relative, generalized cost
of gaining information about next IK
sources.
Assessment of
relative,
generalized Yes
cost of gaining
next IK.
M1d
IMd11…….IMd1
No
Decision 1
………..
IMs11…….IMs1n
3
Next IK
acquisition
M1s
Evaluation of outcomes, using P
Fig. 3
The PP applicability:
conclusions
I0
Situation
Assessment scheme
Hence, paradoxically, the most important precautionary measure in
management of risk in LCCIs is narrowing the field for PP
application at decision-maker level as much as possible. These
measures allow saving a valuable resource in LCCI management –
the time. Improper application of PP can strongly decrease the
efficiency of decision-making or even stop the process.
The proposed decomposition allows to develop a computer program
which could be used to simulate the decision-makers’ behaviour.
Such a problem could support already existing LCCI simulators.
The presented study has a preliminary character. It has been
performed in the frame of research and development projects: EU
IRRIIS (Integrated Risk Reduction of Information-based
Infrastructure Systems), the Italian national project CRESCO (Centro
computazionale di RicErca sui Sistemi COmplessi - subproject: SocioCognitive Modelling for Complex Socio-Technological Networks),
and the ENEA’s project on the vulnerability of large technological
and energy networks.
Bingham,
J.,
2002,
Security
and
Safety
in
Large
Complex
Critical
Infrastructures,
http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/rdl/EDCC-4/Presentations/bighamSlides.pdf, March 15, 2008.
Bologna, S., et al 2003. Dependability and Survivability in Large Complex Critical Infrastructures. In SAFECOMP
2003 Conf. Proc. Computer Safety, Reliability and Security, p.242.
COMEST, 2005 - World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology The Precautionary
Principle. Paris UNESCO.
Cranor, C. F., 2004. Toward Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle, Journal of Medicine and
Philosophy, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 259–279
Ezell, B.C., 2007, Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I-VAM), Risk Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 571 –
583.
Jones, A., 2007, Critical infrastructure protection, Computer fraud & Security, Vol. 2007, Issue 4, pp. 11 – 15.
Gadomski A.M., 1994, TOGA: A methodological and Conceptual Pattern for modeling of Abstract Intelligent
Agent. In Proc. of the ‘First International Round-Table on Abstract Intelligent Agent’, 25-27 Jan. 1993, ENEA print.
Gadomski A.M. et al., 2001. Towards Intelligent Decision Support Systems for Emergency Managers: The IDA
Approach. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, IJRAM, Vol 2, No 3/4.
Gadomski, A.M., 2002. TOGA Systemic Approach to the Global Specification. Sophocles Project Report, EU
EUREKA., March 15, 2008. http://hid.casaccia.enea.it/RepSoph-v10.pdf
Gadomski, A.M., 2003. Socio-Cognitive Engineering Foundations and Applications: From Humans to Nations.
Preprints of SCEF2003 (First International Workshop on Socio-Cognitive Engineering Foundations and Third
Abstract Intelligent Agent International Round-Tables Initiative), Rome, 30 Sep. http://hid.casaccia.enea.it/GadPositionPap-5a.pdf
Gadomski, A.M., 2007. Modeling of Human Organization Vulnerability: TOGA Meta-Theory Approach to the
Socio-Cognitive Complexity. In Proc. of ECCS 2007, European Conference
Hahn, R. W. , Sunstein, C. R. 2005. The Precautionary Principle as a Basis for Decision Making, The Economist’s
Voice, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1 – 9.
Haimes, Y.Y., 1991, Total Risk Management, Risk Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 169 – 171.
Haimes, Y.Y., 1999, The Role of the Society for Risk Analysis in the Emerging Threats to Critical Infrastructures,
Risk Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 153 – 157.
Haimes, Y.Y., 2006, On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures, Risk Analysis, vol.
2006, No. 2, pp. 293 – 296.
Peterson, M., 2006. The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp.595 – 601.
Snediker, D.E., Murray, A.T., Matisziw, T.C., (2008) Decision support of network disruption mitigation, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 44, pp. 954 – 969
More information are included in the full paper, available in the Proceedings of the
CRITICS2008 Woekshop, Rome, Oct.2008.
See also CRESCO-SOC-COG web: http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/SC-CRESCO